Fighting a fear-governed government... with cowardice?

[NV1962]

Here, on DU, several topics have sprung to life on the decision made by MoveOn to publicly state regret over an omission of overt criticism towards a controversial and externally submitted message.

As tortured as that premise already is, to me it also is such a clear case of controversy itself being used for censure - with a censoring effect.

I'm all for restraint, decorum, proportionality and what not - something that journalists should apply, together with a dual fairness and accuracy standard. Yet increasingly, I see journalists fail their profession miserably, by selective attention, cognitive dissonance, astounding lack of courage, in short: by betraying their profession - which betrays their audience in the process. Unfortunately, Fox News and its "fair and balanced" slogan isn't a unique oxymoron in the landscape of US mainstream media.

Here, on this message board, I see a disturbing continuation of that trend: the acceptance of the idea of controversy as a taboo itself. I consider that as too derived a form of giving in to pressures, resulting in an impaired approach of debate.

Returning to the initial case: making a comparison between Bush and Hitler is valid, I maintain, because there are similarities that should give one pause.

But what truly angers me is that we're falling victim (no: victimizing ourselves!) by confounding comparison with identification. Making a comparison is not the same as presenting two issues as equal. Comparing Bush with Hitler isn't the same as suggesting that they should be treated or discussed as equivalents. Making a comparison, in public debate, has the effect of requesting the audience to reflect on similarities; not to respond in a uniform manner. Suggesting the latter is as delusional as it is insulting.

MoveOn is called on the fact that someone else has submitted an item containing that comparison, which subsequently was voted to the bottom of the list. By adopting the voters' decision, MoveOn has made an "editorial" choice embracing the public thumbs down to using that incendiary comparison for electoral/campaign purposes.

And I agree with MoveOn on that decision to adopt the voters' choice, without further comment.

I can understand the Siemon Wiesenthal Center in its pained criticism. I can only understand the RNC's response from a partison point of view - but not with an inherent understanding, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, on DU, in light of the equally incendiary portrayals of Hillary Rodham - and that's only one disqualifying argument I could cite.

The fact that Hitler is an extremely incendiary name should not automatically preclude its use. To do that is to pre-empt debate with formal requirements that, in effect, are targeted to silence criticism.

I repeat: the comparison between Bush and Hitler holds, up to an extent. MoveOn has expressly censured it, in its initial reaction to the broohaha.

By caving in to partisan pressure, MoveOn is adding a self-inflicted injury to an "insult" it had already disqualified. The situation would have been very different if MoveOn had chosen to ignore the votes, and discretionally, unilaterally decided to push/favor/air that contentious ad; that would have been an action that arguably deserves a lot of flak.

Instead, MoveOn has responded to criticism by curtailing its own editorial balance and independence. MoveOn has done itself a major disservice here.

Instead, I think that purely tactical considerations have moved MoveOn: by dodging the controversy, they hoped to avoid becoming a poisoned well for the 30-second commercials they hope to air, later onward.

Yet that leads to the biggest irony, not to say tragedy: in order to be critical of Bush, they chose to kiss his ass.

That is, in its essence, lack of cojones. It may be deemed "wise" or "smart" - that is a subjective consideration.

But it is a decision induced by fear - and that is as regrettable as proof of the fact that there is reason to decry a regime ruling by self-imposed fear. I believe Joseph Goebbels would have liked it that way.

And that brings me to this final consideration, framed in a question: how can vigorous debate exist on the topic of government, when a recurring critique of a given government centers on its fearmongering politics?

[DUreader]

1. Great Analysis, NV

thanks for posting this

[DUreader]

2. kick

[DUreader]

3. Did anybody else read this?